Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because, of course, the alarmist believe that ONLY their side scientists are qualified to do the math and draw conclusions. In other wiords, only those already intiated into their religion may speak on the subject. All else are unwashed, barbarians, and unqualified.
Yep, more AGW trash tlk. Shoot the messenger. Because only our point of view, our religion, is the one true one.
Yep... more so called science from yet another AGW bot.
PS I note well that sanspeur has me blockfiled, because he knows he cannot debate me on fact, only on insinuation.
This is the best summary I've seen of how the AGW alarmist use the scientific method in reverse, I agree 100%.
"Science is a method, not a set of dogmas. The scientific method is pretty simple: you suggest a hypothesis, calculate what facts in the real world must be true if the hypothesis is correct, and then check the hypothesis against reality. If the hypothesis implies false propositions of fact, it is wrong. Case closed.
Climate alarmists stand the scientific method on its head. When their theories, as expressed in climate models, conflict with reality, they conclude that something must be wrong with reality. The heat that their models hypothesize must be “hiding” deep in the oceans, or whatever. This isn’t science: it is a combination of politics and religion. A proposition that cannot be falsified by experience is not a scientific proposition." Once More: Why
Screaming loudly gets votes and an audience? The AGW crowd sure took that lesson to heart with their constant alarmism and fear mongering!
I'm not grandstanding, I'm am calling out hypocrisy. You are dodging and excusing the hypocrisy by accusing me of grandstanding to change the subject.
You started this thread without reading your article, which only focuses on deep oceans. You ignored that global mean ocean temperature is increasing, along with the acidification that occurs from more carbon absorption. After that you resorted to the exact same argument in this thread //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...eological.html.
Move on from that argument and let's get back to your article you posted, how about that?
Quote:
You are seriously not aware of the alarmism and fear mongering? You've never read the IPCC's summary for policymakers or ANY report about global warming in the mainstream media?
The alarmism is causing schoolchildren to doubt their own future:
"In the US, the ABC television network recently reported that psychologists are starting to see more neuroses in people anxious about climate change.
In a new survey of 500 American pre-teens, it was found that one in three children, aged between six and 11, feared that the earth would not exist when they reach adulthood because of global warming and other environmental threats. An unbelievable one-third of our children believe that they don't have a future because of scary global warming stories." Scared silly over climate change | Björn Lomborg | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Alarmism is causing people to doubt the legitimate aspects of climate science:
"Apocalyptic language has been used about greenhouse gas emissions as “a deliberate strategy by some to engage public interest”, it reported.
However, trying to make people reduce emissions by frightening them has “harmful consequences” because they often respond suspiciously or *decide that the issue is “too scary to think about”.
The inquiry, by senior scientists from a range of disciplines, was commissioned by University College London to find better ways of informing the public about climate science. Public interest in climate change has fallen sharply in the past few years, according to a survey last month that found that Google searches for the phrase “global warming” had fallen by 84 per cent since their peak in 2007.
Confidence in climate science was undermined in 2010 by the revelation that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN body that advises governments, had falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035." Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Alarmism is being used as a cynical means of getting attention and getting funding:
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." Emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." Al Gore
"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist
“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.” Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy
So you can't form a concise, simple paragraph and use other people's quotes like I specifically asked you to do..... You've actually used those quotes before in the other thread you tried to debate in....
I'm still trying to get you to quantify it some way, again, like in the other thread that you abruptly stopped responding.
Quote:
Yeah. Less in the past 16 years than in the past 30-60 DESPITE the same or more CO2 emissions.
Actually despite more emissions. Obviously there is something we are missing, which is being researched. If you would actually read your articles, the oceans are warming and acidifying, and particulate matter, SOX and NOX are emissions that act to cool the planet that have been released in abundance. Again though, there is nothing that has occurred in the last 16 years that throws doubt into the notion man's action are causing climate change.
Quote:
Why are you asking me? It's your side who continually claims this. To my mind, it means that the scientific theory that man's emissions of CO2 are responsible for global warming which will lead to any number of climate catastrophes unless we act fast is considered a settled matter that is no longer being debated or questioned in the scientific community. I disagree. Science should NEVER be settled.
The bolded part actually isn't part of settled science, just you inserting your own personal dogma you've been carrying around this entire thread.
Quote:
Seriously? "Why does it come back to leadership"? If that has to be explained to you than this conversation is a waste of time.
Because you keep trying to make this stupid argument that really has no relevance to the validity of AGW. Even if the president cuts out all vacations, the president still travels a lot domestically and internationally. The president will have a large entourage no matter because he is the president of the most powerful country in the world.
Either you just are being ignorant about the matter or it's a subtle Obama jab.
Quote:
Not at all. Your side defines this as an extreme issue. Logic dictates that it will take extreme measures to combat extreme issues.
Actually no. Extreme measures would require cooperation between the US internally and the entire world.
You create the unrealistic expectations only so you can tear them down... You used this exact same argument in the other thread and I shot it down. Your expectations are entirely unreasonable as you don't seem to account any of the political will and cooperation on an unprecedented scale to meet these extreme measures that "logic dictates". You blast being alarmist but it's okay for you to assume any policy will only raise taxes and ship more jobs overseas.
Quote:
China’s Environmental Crisis - Council on Foreign Relations
They say they want to improve things and change. I'll believe it when I see it. Beyond even good intentions, there is the practical matter that we have not developed an alternative to fossil fuels that will satisfy the demand for energy consumption.
Actually we have that, it's called nuclear power and China is building a lot of that too along with solar and wind.
Because, of course, the alarmist believe that ONLY their side scientists are qualified to do the math and draw conclusions. In other wiords, only those already intiated into their religion may speak on the subject. All else are unwashed, barbarians, and unqualified.
Yep, more AGW trash tlk. Shoot the messenger. Because only our point of view, our religion, is the one true one.
Yep... more so called science from yet another AGW bot.
PS I note well that sanspeur has me blockfiled, because he knows he cannot debate me on fact, only on insinuation.
Why do you waste your time with partisan ideologues?
You started this thread without reading your article, which only focuses on deep oceans. You ignored that global mean ocean temperature is increasing, along with the acidification that occurs from more carbon absorption. After that you resorted to the exact same argument in this thread //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...eological.html.
Move on from that argument and let's get back to your article you posted, how about that?
You are dodging yet again, we were talking about how calling out hypocrisy of the left is not grandstanding. I've made my position on the article cited in the OP clear many times. Stop trying to change the subject when you get called out on your B.S. claims. Calling out hypocrisy is not grandstanding and it's not irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So you can't form a concise, simple paragraph and use other people's quotes like I specifically asked you to do..... You've actually used those quotes before in the other thread you tried to debate in....
I'm still trying to get you to quantify it some way, again, like in the other thread that you abruptly stopped responding.
Sure. You want my own words and opinion on alarmism? Fine. I figured you would start whining if there were no sources cited.
This entire debate, from the beginning was defined by alarmist predictions from the IPCC, the president, the media and on down the line. I don't actually have a problem with the basic science of AGW, that man's emissions likely affect the environment in negative ways and we should clean up our environment as well as seek out greener energy. The issues of contention are how much is man responsible and how bad will the effects be or as some have posited, maybe we are too small a factor to make a real difference. We just don't know.
My problem comes when that message is delivered in the form of false warnings, threatening all sorts of climate catastrophes unless we act fast, stop asking questions and do as we are told.
My problem is when skeptics are vilified, marginalized and called "science deniers", "flat earthers" or in the pocket of big oil.
I actually think that your movement is doing more harm to the environment than it is good because the fear mongering, like the little boy who cried wolf, just rings hollow after awhile and people tune it out like so much background noise. Then they start associating GOOD environmental policies and ideas with the alarmist rubbish that keeps getting churned out like clockwork.
I think it is odious and disgusting that children are worried about their future because the liberal indoctrination centers we call public education are teaching this alarmist, activist garbage in the place of real science.
We all know the reasons why. The scientific groups use it to get attention and get funding while the media uses it to get viewers and readers. Fear is a very basic human instinct. The threat of a looming catastrophe sells.
Researchers don't seek the truth, they seek grants and funding.
Journalists don't seek the truth, they seek attention grabbing headlines and stories that sell advertisements.
Politicians don't seek the truth, they seek votes and excuses to raise taxes.
Well now these three have found a cause behind which they can work together for everyone's benefit...except the truth, that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Actually despite more emissions. Obviously there is something we are missing, which is being researched. If you would actually read your articles, the oceans are warming and acidifying, and particulate matter, SOX and NOX are emissions that act to cool the planet that have been released in abundance. Again though, there is nothing that has occurred in the last 16 years that throws doubt into the notion man's action are causing climate change.
You clearly do not understand how the scientific process works, do you?
"Science is a method, not a set of dogmas. The scientific method is pretty simple: you suggest a hypothesis, calculate what facts in the real world must be true if the hypothesis is correct, and then check the hypothesis against reality. If the hypothesis implies false propositions of fact, it is wrong. Case closed.
Climate alarmists stand the scientific method on its head. When their theories, as expressed in climate models, conflict with reality, they conclude that something must be wrong with reality. The heat that their models hypothesize must be “hiding” deep in the oceans, or whatever. This isn’t science: it is a combination of politics and religion. A proposition that cannot be falsified by experience is not a scientific proposition." Once More: Why
This is exactly what the AGW crowd is doing. No one in the so called 97% consensus or the computer models predicted that the warming was going to slow or pause for 16 years so instead of re examining the theory, they assume reality itself is the culprit and their theories are still correct but they need to *find* the missing heat.
Because CLEARLY the 97% consensus and all of these computer models couldn't be wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
The bolded part actually isn't part of settled science, just you inserting your own personal dogma you've been carrying around this entire thread.
How is it my personal dogma that the AGW alarmists keep claiming that we need to act fast before it's too late?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Because you keep trying to make this stupid argument that really has no relevance to the validity of AGW. Even if the president cuts out all vacations, the president still travels a lot domestically and internationally. The president will have a large entourage no matter because he is the president of the most powerful country in the world.
Either you just are being ignorant about the matter or it's a subtle Obama jab.
You have no idea what leadership and setting an example means.
You have no idea what hypocrisy means when someone (not just the president, anyone) says we have an impending crisis in which we all have to make sacrifices and work together to solve but they aren't willing to inconvenience themselves.
Either you are too stupid to understand this simple concept or your are being a contrarian in order to engage in a pissing contest.
I'm tired of repeating myself on this so please... embrace your ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Actually no. Extreme measures would require cooperation between the US internally and the entire world.
You create the unrealistic expectations only so you can tear them down... You used this exact same argument in the other thread and I shot it down. Your expectations are entirely unreasonable as you don't seem to account any of the political will and cooperation on an unprecedented scale to meet these extreme measures that "logic dictates". You blast being alarmist but it's okay for you to assume any policy will only raise taxes and ship more jobs overseas.
"Political Will" HA! Did you happen to notice the last climate summit? There IS no political will. There are vague promises and little action.
"The UN climate summit has ended in New York with the same old warnings about climate change and another spate of "urgent" calls for a new global climate pact, hopefully to be reached by Dec. 2015 in Paris.
Look at the results of the U.N.’s Global Survey for a Better World, also known as MyWorld2015, show “Action taken on Climate Change” is at the very bottom. "Political will"? Give it a rest. MYWorld2015 Analytics
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Actually we have that, it's called nuclear power and China is building a lot of that too along with solar and wind.
Good for them if they clean up their act but I will believe it when I see it.
Last edited by voiceofreazon; 10-10-2014 at 12:30 PM..
This is the best summary I've seen of how the AGW alarmist use the scientific method in reverse, I agree 100%.
"Science is a method, not a set of dogmas. The scientific method is pretty simple: you suggest a hypothesis, calculate what facts in the real world must be true if the hypothesis is correct, and then check the hypothesis against reality. If the hypothesis implies false propositions of fact, it is wrong. Case closed.
Climate alarmists stand the scientific method on its head. When their theories, as expressed in climate models, conflict with reality, they conclude that something must be wrong with reality. The heat that their models hypothesize must be “hiding” deep in the oceans, or whatever. This isn’t science: it is a combination of politics and religion. A proposition that cannot be falsified by experience is not a scientific proposition." Once More: Why
You want science? Can you refute even one of this list?
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
You are dodging yet again, we were talking about how calling out hypocrisy of the left is not grandstanding. I've made my position on the article cited in the OP clear many times. Stop trying to change the subject when you get called out on your B.S. claims. Calling out hypocrisy is not grandstanding and it's not irrelevant.
What does hypocrisy have to do with the thread YOU started? You are carrying over the same argument from the thread I linked to... Are you trolling your own thread?
Quote:
Sure. You want my own words and opinion on alarmism? Fine. I figured you would start whining if there were no sources cited.
This entire debate, from the beginning was defined by alarmist predictions from the IPCC, the president, the media and on down the line. I don't actually have a problem with the basic science of AGW, that man's emissions likely affect the environment in negative ways and we should clean up our environment as well as seek out greener energy. The issues of contention are how much is man responsible and how bad will the effects be or as some have posited, maybe we are too small a factor to make a real difference. We just don't know.
My problem comes when that message is delivered in the form of false warnings, threatening all sorts of climate catastrophes unless we act fast, stop asking questions and do as we are told.
My problem is when skeptics are vilified, marginalized and called "science deniers", "flat earthers" or in the pocket of big oil.
I actually think that your movement is doing more harm to the environment than it is good because the fear mongering, like the little boy who cried wolf, just rings hollow after awhile and people tune it out like so much background noise. Then they start associating GOOD environmental policies and ideas with the alarmist rubbish that keeps getting churned out like clockwork.
I think it is odious and disgusting that children are worried about their future because the liberal indoctrination centers we call public education are teaching this alarmist, activist garbage in the place of real science.
We all know the reasons why. The scientific groups use it to get attention and get funding while the media uses it to get viewers and readers. Fear is a very basic human instinct. The threat of a looming catastrophe sells.
Researchers don't seek the truth, they seek grants and funding.
Journalists don't seek the truth, they seek attention grabbing headlines and stories that sell advertisements.
Politicians don't seek the truth, they seek votes and excuses to raise taxes.
Well now these three have found a cause behind which they can work together for everyone's benefit...except the truth, that is.
I agree that alarmism is more harmful than good but that doesn't change the fact the evidence still points to AGW. Maybe you need to tone down the partisanship and read more scholarly.articles that don't have an alarmist tone.
Quote:
You clearly do not understand how the scientific process works, do you?
"Science is a method, not a set of dogmas. The scientific method is pretty simple: you suggest a hypothesis, calculate what facts in the real world must be true if the hypothesis is correct, and then check the hypothesis against reality. If the hypothesis implies false propositions of fact, it is wrong. Case closed.
Climate alarmists stand the scientific method on its head. When their theories, as expressed in climate models, conflict with reality, they conclude that something must be wrong with reality. The heat that their models hypothesize must be “hiding” deep in the oceans, or whatever. This isn’t science: it is a combination of politics and religion. A proposition that cannot be falsified by experience is not a scientific proposition." Once More: Why
This is exactly what the AGW crowd is doing. No one in the so called 97% consensus or the computer models predicted that the warming was going to slow or pause for 16 years so instead of re examining the theory, they assume reality itself is the culprit and their theories are still correct but they need to *find* the missing heat.
Because CLEARLY the 97% consensus and all of these computer models couldn't be wrong
The earth is still warming, not as much as predicted, so they are looking into why that is occurring.... Perhaps you don't know how science works. There is nothing in the data to suggest we aren't causing warning, what about that is hard to understand?
Quote:
How is it my personal dogma that the AGW alarmists keep claiming that we need to act fast before it's too late?
Because you make these false and unrealistic expectations.
Quote:
You have no idea what leadership and setting an example means.
You have no idea what hypocrisy means when someone (not just the president, anyone) says we have an impending crisis in which we all have to make sacrifices and work together to solve but they aren't willing to inconvenience themselves.
Either you are too stupid to understand this simple concept or your are being a contrarian in order to engage in a pissing contest.
I'm tired of repeating myself on this so please... embrace your ignorance.
So start a new thread about agw hypocrisy instead of de railing your own thread....
Quote:
"Political Will" HA! Did you happen to notice the last climate summit? There IS no political will. There are vague promises and little action.
"The UN climate summit has ended in New York with the same old warnings about climate change and another spate of "urgent" calls for a new global climate pact, hopefully to be reached by Dec. 2015 in Paris.
Look at the results of the U.N.’s Global Survey for a Better World, also known as MyWorld2015, show “Action taken on Climate Change” is at the very bottom. "Political will"? Give it a rest. MYWorld2015 Analytics
Good for them if they clean up their act but I will believe it when I see it.
What does hypocrisy have to do with the thread YOU started? You are carrying over the same argument from the thread I linked to... Are you trolling your own thread?
More dodging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I agree that alarmism is more harmful than good but that doesn't change the fact the evidence still points to AGW. Maybe you need to tone down the partisanship and read more scholarly.articles that don't have an alarmist tone.
Too bad that scholarly articles do not drive the policy decisions that affect all of us. It's the alarmism that leads to poorly thought through policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
The earth is still warming, not as much as predicted, so they are looking into why that is occurring.... Perhaps you don't know how science works. There is nothing in the data to suggest we aren't causing warning, what about that is hard to understand?
When reality diverges from a scientific theory, it's not reality that is the problem, the theory needs to be questioned and re evaluated. You don't search blindly for more evidence of the theory instead. It's the scientific process in reverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Because you make these false and unrealistic expectations.
The AGW alarmists keep saying that we need to act fast before it's too late, not me. Those aren't my false and unrealistic expectations. As I said earlier, logic dictates that an extreme problem will call for extreme solutions. .
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So start a new thread about agw hypocrisy instead of de railing your own thread.....
You don't like where the thread is going you are more than welcome to leave or start YOUR own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Glad you agree with me so stop your silly logic.
Silly logic? What is silly about being pessimistic about China following through on their environmental commitments at the expense of their growth?
You want science? Can you refute even one of this list?
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
"What the past tells us about modern sea-level rise Although fast, the observed rise still is (just) within the 'natural range'. While we are within this range, our current understanding of ice-mass loss is adequate. Continued monitoring of future sea-level rise will show if and when it goes outside the natural range
"What the past tells us about modern sea-level rise Although fast, the observed rise still is (just) within the 'natural range'. While we are within this range, our current understanding of ice-mass loss is adequate. Continued monitoring of future sea-level rise will show if and when it goes outside the natural range
What kind of refutation is this? You neglected to post the entire paragraph....
If that happens, then this means that our current understanding falls short, potentially with severe consequences."
By comparing reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and sea level over the past 40 million years, researchers based at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton have found that greenhouse gas concentrations similar to the present (almost 400 parts per million) were systematically associated with sea levels at least nine metres above current levels. http://phys.org/news/2013-01-documen...-sea.html#nRlv
You want science? Can you refute even one of this list?
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
]
Duh! ice age ended!
I dont deny there is warming. It is completely to be expected at the end of an ice age.
Do you know what the sea levels were in 1250 AD? Bet you and none of your AGW ideologues do either!
Settled science indeed!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
